“Yes, and where did those guns comes from? Places where they weren’t banned. It’s no different than blaming Chicago for the guns that come from outside the city where laws are lax.”
Wow. It’s almost as if you’ve failed to realize that guns are a Pandora’s box. You can’t put them back in the box, and when you try, you…
takeshi72
takeshi72
Guns are only banned at the NRA Leadership forum/meetings if the POTUS or VP or someone attends. And that’s not because the NRA says so, it’s because the Secret Service says so.
Yes it is a contrived scenario. First I was specifically talking about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, where guns were already banned.
Second, If you ban the guns used in mass shootings, you just end up with government sponsored mass shootings.
No. First of all most of the school shootings CNN cites don’t even exist.
Can I ask you what data led you to drawing your different conclusion? You haven’t posted any on here. Just opinions and personal experience.
“America stands alone in the world in thinking that adding more guns make a country more safe.”
And the FBI data backs it up: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view
Question: would we have the same reaction if a Ferrari F355 owner filed the same complaint? They have about the same amount of ground clearance from the factory.
Just to put four inches of ground clearance into perspective, the Ferrari F355 only has 4.2 inches of ground clearance.
Yep. Some adults let their irrational fears get the best of them even when they’re shown that the evidence contradicts their views. I used to agree with you, but I’ve seen the light. Hopefully some day you’ll see it too.
Yep, and I could also come up with a bunch of contrived scenarios where they’d also be alive. It doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t, and your statement is false because of it.
“Thats pretty easy, in countries with no guns, there are no mass shootings, because there are no guns available to facilitate the shootings...”
Charlie Hebdo proves this statement false.
“I could very easily refute your bullshit chart all day long and give you another 100 examples to prove why you are dead wrong.”
No you couldn’t. That’s why you wrote multiple paragraphs ranting incoherent gobbledygook, but didn’t provide any evidence or statistics to support your argument.
“i am sure there is causation there.”
Sort of like the (lack of) correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate? It’s pretty obvious that the number of semi-automatic weapons a country has is irrelevant to stopping people from killing each other.
We were talking about how guns in the hands of private citizens keep the government in check, and you and I both agreed that the United States wasn’t one of the countries in the 20th century where 50 million people were murdered by their own government after they lost the right to own firearms.
So why are you suddenly…
EXACTLY. Thanks for proving my point.
So much for not snarking on the politics part.
So to prove me wrong you resort to a single piece of anecdotal evidence and some ad hominem insults. I’m not insane. There’s plenty of statistics throughout history that support my argument. 50 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments when they lost the right to own firearms. Far more…